Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax 2011 2011 2011 (9) Service Tax - 2011 (9) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Service Tax - Case Laws

Showing 81 to 100 of 145 Records

• 2011 (9) TMI 473
  

  Rebate under Rule 5 - Held That:- Rebate cannot be disallowed for delay in filing Notification 12/2005, In view of CST v. Convergys India (P.) Ltd. (2010 (8) TMI 47 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT), rebate was admissible. - The judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cadila Laboratories (P.) Ltd. (2001 (11) TMI 94 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), relied upon by the department is not applicable to the facts of this case, when there is substantial compliance with the provisions of Notification No. 12/2005-ST regarding the procedure to be followed for claiming the rebate.

  Rebate claim along with requisite evidence - co-relation between the export invoices and the FICRs - Held That:- Just because FICRs do not bear the export invoice numbers, it cannot be concluded that the same do not pertain to the service provided by the appellant to their client abroad.

  Advertisement service, Chartered Accountant Services, Management Consultant Services, services are not used for providing the Customer Care Services which was exported. in the appellant's own case CST v. Convergys India (P.) Ltd. (2009 (5) TMI 50 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI), rebate was allowed.

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 465
  

  Period of Limitation - Refund claim after 4 years - Held That:- Limitation prescribed by newly enacted provision is to bar belated claims. Parties should exercise their right without delay. In absence of any evidence on record to appreciate that the appellant was prevented to make refund claim for reasons beyond its control, the appellant has no claim to sustain. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 456
  

  Cenvat Credit - Input Service Distributor - Credit Denied on the ground that strength on which credit availed were not the documents as per Rule 4A(2) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 - Held- learned advocate produced all the details - Case remanded back to original jurisdiction.

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 450
  

  Refund of Cenavt - 100% Export Oriented Unit - Service Tax Registration Certificate not submitted - Period of limitation - Held That:- The assessee is entitled to the refund of the Cenvat credit. Similarly insofar as refund of Cenvat credit is concerned, the limitation under section 11B does not apply for refund of accumulated cenvat credit. Therefore, bar of limitation cannot be a ground to refuse cenvat credit to the assessee.

  Registration not compulsory for refund - Export of software not a taxable service still refund cannot be denied - Assessee to produce the invoice, bills, receipts to substantiate their claim.

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 447
  

  Refunds - assessee paid service tax on the interest collected from customers voluntarily and not under protest - Claim made under Article 265 of the Constitution of India and Section 72 of the Contract Act. - Held that - Constitution Bench of the apex Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) had an occasion to go into this question - When act provides a complete mechanism for correcting any errors whether on fact or on law the burden is to work out his remedy within four corners of law. If the remedy is to be worked out within the four corners of law the party has accepted invoking the jurisdiction of the authority to refund within the period prescribed under the Act. - refund not granted - appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 444
  

  Recovery of interest - Time period for issue of Show cause notice - Held - the Show Cause Notice was issued beyond the period of 1 year. There is no indication in the Show Cause Notice that there was suppression or mis-declaration and obviously the appellant was filing returns regularly and therefore, the Revenue could have easily found that interest was not paid and Service Tax has been paid late. - Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 443
  

  Refund under Rule 5 - Cenvat Credit - Held that:- The finding of the Commissioner in respect of three services namely Air Travel Agents Services, Event Management Services and Design Services that they are not essential for the output services rendered by the respondent are categorical. The respondent is not in appeal. However in respect of other services, the finding of the Commissioner is not categorical. Therefore, his remitting the matter to the original authority is in the nature of remand which is not proper - Commissioner (Appeals) has no power of remand (2007 - TMI - 1196 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) - However the re-examination of the claim in respect of other services deserves to be done by the original authority in the light of guidelines prescribed by Board's Circular dated 19.01.2010. In view of the above, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in so far as the same relates to services other than Air Travel Agents services, Event Management Services and Design services are set aside and the matter remanded to the original authority for fresh consideration

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 418
  

  Waiver of penalty u/s 76 and 78 of Finance Act 1994 – assessee engaged in activity of arranging finances/loans for their car customers from various banks and financial institutions - services falling under the category of business auxiliary services - Held that:- The issue involved is of interpretation of the taxing entry and no mala fide or element of suppression or mis-statement can be attributed to the assessee hence, imposition of penalties are set aside. See Roshan Motors Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut (2008 - TMI - 31834 - CESTAT, New Delhi)

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 417
  

  Civil construction work undertaken required for pre-commissioning of petrol pump – invoking the longer period of limitation - Held that:- The definition of 'commissioning and installation' takes into ambit the services provided in relation to commissioning or installation of plant and machinery or equipment and not completing the job for pre-commissioning. Thus , civil construction work performed does not fall under the category of commissioning and installation.

  Since there is no evidence of positive act of suppression against the appellants. It is well settled law that mere non-filing of information to the Revenue on the reasonable belief that the activities undertaken by them are not taxable, cannot be held to be a justifiable ground for invokation of longer period of limitation.- Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 408
  

  Service tax - Whether,the service falling under the category of photography, the cost of material used is required to be added in the value of services or not - he issue stands covered by the larger bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Aggarwal Colour Advance Photo System (2011 -TMI - 205988 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB)) - It stands held that the value of such material is required to be added in the value of services.

  Penalty - Commissioner (Appeals) has held in favour of the respondents, thus, indicating the issue involved is of interpretation of law, which can be considered a factor lending to bonafide belief to the respondents not to include the value of cost of material so used in the value of services - As such,in the absence of malafide on the part of the respondents, the imposition of penalty upon them is not justified.

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 407
  

  Service tax on free after-sales service provided by the vehicle dealer or not - Following the ratio of the order in CST, Chennai Vs Concorde Motors (India) Ltd. (2010 -TMI - 207698 - CESTAT, Chennai) holding that service tax is not leviable on free after-sales service provided by the vehicle dealer - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 406
  

  Payment of service tax on GTA in Cash or through Cenvat Credit - the taxable service received by them on which they were liable to pay service tax as service recipient under the provisions of Section 68 (2) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 2 (1) (d) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 could be treated as their output service and, therefore, Service tax on the same was required to be paid in cash and not by utilizing Cenvat credit. - Demand of service tax with interest upheld.

  Penalty - held that:- The show case notice in this case has been issued within the normal period of limitation. Further, it can be seen that there were differing views on the matter by various judicial authorities during the relevant time and, therefore, the appellants cannot be said to have indulged in any willful mis-statement of facts or suppression of facts with a view to evade service tax. - Penalty set aside.

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 402
  

  Customs House Agent(CHA) services - respondents have collected amounts under a heading 'Service Charges-Compliance' - Revenue contended that activities of assesse come under CHA services as defined in Section 65 (105)(h)of Finance Act, 1994 and hence taxable - while assesse said that activities do not relate to the core activities of the CHA - Held and decided that respondents have collected the amounts under the heading 'Service Charges-Compliance' and have not indicated the actual nature of work undertaken - the work of the CHA relating to the processing of draw back claim in respect of any export consignments starts even before the shipping bill for draw back claim is filed by the choice of entry of Drawback schedule underwhich drawback is claimed - the impugned activities will also fall under CHA services. - Matter remanded back to decide other issues i.e penalty on the ground of bonafide mistake.

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 401
  

  Refund claims under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in respect of service tax paid on the input services used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product. The adjudicating authority considered the claims as per the provisions of Notification 41/2007-ST dated 6.10.2007 and rejected - Held that:- input credit is available in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of final product being exported irrespective of the fact that the final product is otherwise exempted, matter remanded to the adjudicating authority

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 392
  

  Taxability - whether discounts/incentives given to the appellant as an advertising agency would be liable for the service tax under the business auxiliary services - As per the the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal decision in the case of Kerala Publicity Bureau [2007 -TMI - 2534 - CESTAT, BANGALORE], held that the discounts/incentives received by the assessee from the print media will not be liable for service tax under the category of advertising agency services - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 387
  

  Delay of 92 days in preferring appeal - plea was of illness of the Director which was supported by medical certificate - Decided keeping in view the case JMC Educational Charitable Trust vs. CCE [2010 -TMI - 203834 - CESTAT, CHENNAI ] it was held that - levy of service tax in respect of the training and coaching provided by the appellants, leading to issuance of certificate or diploma or degree to the students is not justified - Hence impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed.

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 386
  

  Refund Claims - claiming the benefit of Notification No. 5/2006-CE (N.T.) dated 14.3.2006 - Unutilized CENVAT credits taken on input services which were used in providing output service which was exported - AO issued show cause notice - Commissioner(Appeal) granted holding that some of the services which were not recognized as input services by the lower authority were input services essential for rendering the output service except Event Management Service & Club or Association Service - On the part of the appellant (Revenue), the contention is that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in this case did not have the power of remand - Held and decided that send the matter in remand to original authority and afford an opportunity to the respondent to produce certificates from Chartered Accountant as required in the Board's Circular dated 19.1.2010 ibid - Stay petition and appeal stands disposed off accordingly.

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 380
  

  Penalty under section 76 & 77 - 'transport of goods by road service'- Appelant contended that once the benefit of section 80 stands given to them for the purpose of imposition of penalty under section 78, the same benefit is required to be extended to penalties imposable under section 76 & 77 - the Tribunal in the case of Anil Kumar Yadav vs. CCE, Pondicherry [2011 -TMI - 202874 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] has held that once the provisions of section 80 are invoked, the lower authorities have no jurisdiction to impose penalty under section 76 & 77 ibid and to waive penalty under section 78. The penalty under all the said sections are required to be waived once reasonable cause has been held to be existing - Appeal disposed off accordingly.

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 377
  

  Cenvat credit claim was in dispute in respect of service tax paid - Mere passing on responsibility to the subordinates shall not serve any purpose of law under the shelter of remand of the matter - appellate authority noticed that there is no reference to registration and type of vehicle used. He had power to call for information when he is Central Excise Officer and also an authority under Finance Act. While he was an appellate authority he has been vested with the power of original authority itself. In such circumstances merely remanding the matter for statistical disposal of the appeal shall shake the confidence of litigants - appeal remanded back to the Appellate authority

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 376
  

  Disallowance of Cenvat credit - For want of registration number under Finance Act, 1994 the Authority disallowed Cenvat credit claim of the appellant - Genuineness of transaction was never disputed by the department - for the limited purpose of verification of registration number the matter may go back to the original authority for verification of registration number - Appeal is allowed by way of remand.

  ---

12345678